A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

We're going to see that diagram and the unlabelled graph again, aren't we?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence. This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

LOL, Gary, so all of that work theoretical physicists have done on QCD and QED and atomic physics, it was totally unnecessary? They could just ask you to program "an IA model," whatever it is?

Since you are such a good sport, why don't you tell me what this IA model has to say about, say, the existence of the negative ion of hydrogen? And if it exists, what is the binding energy?

The Intelligence Algorithm (logical name for it and just "IA" saves typing) only needs to know the atomic system (particle made of smaller particles) is a lone proton, neutron or lone electron/photon traveling through space at (nearly else program might error out) speed of light. This is derived from number of electrons, protons and neutrons.

To address any combination of up to 127 electrons, neutrons and protons:

ParticleNumber = Electrons + (Neutrons * 128) + (Protons * 128 * 128)

or:

ParticleNumber = Electrons + (Neutrons * 128) + (Protons * 16384)

There is now a 21 bit address for all possibilities. Since most combinations are immediately unstable (hence do not occur as a particle system) it is also possible to reduce the number of bits required to give each a unique particle number.

The ParticleNumber can be stored in the world/universe memory array, one entry/element for all particles. Where there is atomic fission the world array is at some point updated to change ParticleNumber of parent atom and add new particle. Where there is atomic fusion the world array is at some point updated to change ParticleNumber of one of the atoms and remove other particle (by copying entry at ParticleCount to one being removed then subtract 1 from ParticleCount).

It is also possible to make each particle bot only either an electron, neutron, proton and whatever else needs to be accounted for. Can also make bots that are quarks or whatever.

In the IA model each particle only needs to know whether it behaved like in actual experiments, or not. It can guess the rest, on its own, so it eventually learns the proper behavior. The "Confidence" circuit would be where your long equations reflecting experimental data gauges success of its motor actions (velocity and direction change in response to forces from particle filled environment around it). Once the IA model has learned how to properly behave the lines of code in the algorithm for including a Confidence subroutine (to gauge success of motor actions) and for including Guess is commented out or deleted. The IA then only has Control and addressable Memory requirements left in, yet continues to work same as before because of then being all-knowing, never needs to takes a guess and is always successful. The IA model can then go at lighting speed.

Anyway, I'll let you tell me what you think we need. Do you have a list of all rudimentary subatomic behaviors/particles needed for a good approximation of matter? You might be more of an expert on what is needed there. In this theoretical paradigm there is simply behavior that other theoretical paradigms model with blackboards full of equations that I do not even want to have to try solving.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence. This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence. This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

It sounds like you are correctly saying this is theory more for the Planet Source Code type programmer who only wants to model real matter entities of any kind for game or something else like a biological model, with as little mind-numbing physics and its controversies as possible. Physics is just one of the applications for this model. In others how brains of insects and/or cells are wired is more important. How scientifically complex it gets, depends on what you want to use it for.

Being able to complicate it beyond where few even dare go with it, is only an indicator of your being good at complicating things, not how useful the model and theory is to everyone. But I would none the less love to see the model that the Physics departments come up with for Planet Source Code. If it's an awesome enough "physics engine" then I'll nominate it for an award. You'll then know why I am proud to show that in my signature line. Likely not mind displaying that winning success in yours, even though we would in the forum then look like twins! Only difference is for some reason I visited some tranquil shoreline where it looks like only pink primordial plasma washes up on the beach. That was of course the magic of miniaturized modeling and a macro lens, that tested the hypothesis that protein skimming of unconsumed (from life not yet existing) dilute organic molecules would concentrate a plasma along the shoreline. As you can see, after a less than one day long experiment that hypothesis held true. I later included the experiment in the theory, to demonstrate (all knowing) behavior of matter just prior to self-assembly of molecular intelligence, life.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

We're going to see that diagram and the unlabelled graph again, aren't we?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence. This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

It sounds like you are correctly saying this is theory more for the Planet Source Code type programmer who only wants to model real matter entities of any kind for game or something else like a biological model, with as little mind-numbing physics and its controversies as possible. Physics is just one of the applications for this model. In others how brains of insects and/or cells are wired is more important. How scientifically complex it gets, depends on what you want to use it for.

Being able to complicate it beyond where few even dare go with it, is only an indicator of your being good at complicating things, not how useful the model and theory is to everyone. But I would none the less love to see the model that the Physics departments come up with for Planet Source Code. If it's an awesome enough "physics engine" then I'll nominate it for an award. You'll then know why I am proud to show that in my signature line. Likely not mind displaying that winning success in yours, even though we would in the forum then look like twins! Only difference is for some reason I visited some tranquil shoreline where it looks like only pink primordial plasma washes up on the beach. That was of course the magic of miniaturized modeling and a macro lens, that tested the hypothesis that protein skimming of unconsumed (from life not yet existing) dilute organic molecules would concentrate a plasma along the shoreline. As you can see, after a less than one day long experiment that hypothesis held true. I later included the experiment in the theory, to demonstrate (all knowing) behavior of matter just prior to self-assembly of molecular intelligence, life.

You write your posts with a random word generator don't you? I bet it won an award.

So what Gary has is a tool for simulating particle (or cell) behavior? Why didn't he just say that, instead of implying that it was some kind of rewrite of current theory?

There is no "rewrite" of existing theory. That's why I try to stress that this paradigm has model that is not like the others that already exist. It is not a GA or EA of any kind. Logical name seems to be IA, so it's not even to be found where in one way or another Darwinian theory rules its logical construct. I stress how the IA is not an EA or GA. Best to not try to comparing them. The variables are different.

The IA has motors that make it move around in the environment. The motor settings is the data from RAM that is addressed by environmental conditions. That's it. No Natural Selection or other variable from another theory. You instead have to get used to properly using the word "Confidence" and "Guess" which is a sub-circuit, that works a specific way in the Intelligent System (could call the circuit/algorithm "IS" but that one sounds too weird).

In the Intelligent Design paradigm the model is (of course) of intelligence, and can also be used for any unintelligent behavior that moves around a 1D to 3D space. Just have to train it, whatever it is, how to behave that way through space and time. What matters is the behavior of the memory contents a RAM, not an equation. Just see kilobytes worth of (data) numbers which only make perfect sense in the mind of the intelligence it came from.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

The theory that people at Planet Source code like so much is not what I would refer to as a sort of math embodied directional influence. This theory works on a different imbodyment of RAM data that doesn't even need to know about Hullbrit and a striking difference between this theory and the "scientists" who want to revolve it back in to an eether-like cloud of what they want to say is a better idea that has no legs and they know it.

It sounds like you are correctly saying this is theory more for the Planet Source Code type programmer who only wants to model real matter entities of any kind for game or something else like a biological model, with as little mind-numbing physics and its controversies as possible. Physics is just one of the applications for this model. In others how brains of insects and/or cells are wired is more important. How scientifically complex it gets, depends on what you want to use it for.

Being able to complicate it beyond where few even dare go with it, is only an indicator of your being good at complicating things, not how useful the model and theory is to everyone. But I would none the less love to see the model that the Physics departments come up with for Planet Source Code. If it's an awesome enough "physics engine" then I'll nominate it for an award. You'll then know why I am proud to show that in my signature line. Likely not mind displaying that winning success in yours, even though we would in the forum then look like twins! Only difference is for some reason I visited some tranquil shoreline where it looks like only pink primordial plasma washes up on the beach. That was of course the magic of miniaturized modeling and a macro lens, that tested the hypothesis that protein skimming of unconsumed (from life not yet existing) dilute organic molecules would concentrate a plasma along the shoreline. As you can see, after a less than one day long experiment that hypothesis held true. I later included the experiment in the theory, to demonstrate (all knowing) behavior of matter just prior to self-assembly of molecular intelligence, life.

You write your posts with a random word generator don't you? I bet it won an award.

I'm not sure what the funniest thing is here: Gary not realising he's being parodied; Gary parading his "award" as though anyone outside that hobbyist website will ever care; or Gary's big block of befuddled babble.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

We're going to see that diagram and the unlabelled graph again, aren't we?

Where did you find that footage of Rich's mother?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

My introductory electronics LOGO program to control a digital turtle is going to revolutionize evolutionary theory.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Why is this happening on JerryBillyBobFtK's thread when GaryBillyBobJoeG has his own thread to wank into?

Why doesn't JerryBillyBobFtK tell GaryBillyBobJoeG to get off his lawn?

Inquiring minds what to know!

Yeah, don't keep all your tards in one basket!

Tards of a feather...

etc...

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would say that the IA is more of a Monte Carlo from cognitive science that must work a certain way and use intelligence related vocabulary and such, but should still work for quantum entities too.

From what I know about MC, the IA is better categorized as that than an AE even though above all things the IA must be a "cognitive model" that works for neural brains as well, therefore not all Monte Carlo's are an IA. It's here always the designing of a (ro)bot with sensory for awareness of its environment.

You can probably also easily enough substitute a neural network for the electronic digital RAM that I use for an example due to (for speed) computer models needing to work with computer RAM chips which digitally address memory data bits. Can also use Arnold Trehub's synaptic matrix ideas, to help reduce memory requirements with analog weights. But getting neural slows it down. What I explain makes it as fast as it can go on a computer, and is more like how RNA and DNA memory is coded.

I would not be surprise by much of the number-crunching code for the model already written and tested, I expect it. If physicists who figure out how simple the IA model actually is then say something like "Eureka! He's just talking about a MC!" then a MC it is, too. But you would have to be the one to determine that, based upon how long it takes to turn it into an Intelligence Design Lab that should come out looking like this (but maybe need to include well labeled line chart for confidences and total memories else never hear the end of it):

Thats the way it works. You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast. You can shape it to reflect what is modeling such as a string-like entity between two X,Y,Z points in 3D space, then you get long thin critters with eye-like sensed environment readout on each end. There would also still be a Design and Addressing form (not shown) to change parameters with. Best not to use other names (not needed) only makes things no longer easily intuitive across multidisciplinary fields. You can tell you got it right, when no matter what you do it still looks like it belongs on Planet Source Code too...

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

Could you be a little more specific about that? What theory will be used to compute "the behavior of strings"? How would the computation be done? What will be the dimension of the Hilbert space and what methods will you use to diagonalize matrices? If it is not numerical diagonalization, will you use quantum Monte Carlo?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I would say that the IA is more of a Monte Carlo from cognitive science that must work a certain way and use intelligence related vocabulary and such, but should still work for quantum entities too.

From what I know about MC, the IA is better categorized as that than an AE even though above all things the IA must be a "cognitive model" that works for neural brains as well, therefore not all Monte Carlo's are an IA. It's here always the designing of a (ro)bot with sensory for awareness of its environment.

You can probably also easily enough substitute a neural network for the electronic digital RAM that I use for an example due to (for speed) computer models needing to work with computer RAM chips which digitally address memory data bits. Can also use Arnold Trehub's synaptic matrix ideas, to help reduce memory requirements with analog weights. But getting neural slows it down. What I explain makes it as fast as it can go on a computer, and is more like how RNA and DNA memory is coded.

I would not be surprise by much of the number-crunching code for the model already written and tested, I expect it. If physicists who figure out how simple the IA model actually is then say something like "Eureka! He's just talking about a MC!" then a MC it is, too. But you would have to be the one to determine that, based upon how long it takes to turn it into an Intelligence Design Lab that should come out looking like this (but maybe need to include well labeled line chart for confidences and total memories else never hear the end of it):

Thats the way it works. You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast. You can shape it to reflect what is modeling such as a string-like entity between two X,Y,Z points in 3D space, then you get long thin critters with eye-like sensed environment readout on each end. There would also still be a Design and Addressing form (not shown) to change parameters with. Best not to use other names (not needed) only makes things no longer easily intuitive across multidisciplinary fields. You can tell you got it right, when no matter what you do it still looks like it belongs on Planet Source Code too...

You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.

Science!

I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. It fits the data just as well.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Hehehe, Gary thinks his code is maybe also a Monte Carlo code, even though he has no idea what a Monte Carlo procedure does.

First, please excuse AE = EA typo in last post. Was in a rush to get it online. At least made it!

Second, I at least have a Wikipedia level understanding of how the "method" follows a particular pattern, that is similar in the physics "algorithm" too. There is a "Generate inputs randomly" that equates to what happens after taking a deterministic guess into motor latch which in turn changes what happens to inputs of RAM:

Quote

Monte Carlo methodFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monte Carlo methods (or Monte Carlo experiments) are a class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to compute their results. Monte Carlo methods are often used in computer simulations of physical and mathematical systems. These methods are most suited to calculation by a computer and tend to be used when it is infeasible to compute an exact result with a deterministic algorithm.[1] This method is also used to complement theoretical derivations.

Monte Carlo methods are especially useful for simulating systems with many coupled degrees of freedom, such as fluids, disordered materials, strongly coupled solids, and cellular structures (see cellular Potts model). They are used to model phenomena with significant uncertainty in inputs, such as the calculation of risk in business. They are widely used in mathematics, for example to evaluate multidimensional definite integrals with complicated boundary conditions. When Monte Carlo simulations have been applied in space exploration and oil exploration, their predictions of failures, cost overruns and schedule overruns are routinely better than human intuition or alternative "soft" methods.[2]

The Monte Carlo method was coined in the 1940s by John von Neumann, Stanislaw Ulam and Nicholas Metropolis, while they were working on nuclear weapon projects (Manhattan Project) in the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It was named after the Monte Carlo Casino, a famous casino where Ulam's uncle often gambled away his money.

Introduction

Monte Carlo method applied to approximating the value of ?. After placing 30000 random points, the estimate for ? is within 0.07% of the actual value. This happens with an approximate probability of 20%. After 30000 points it is within 7%. [needs reference or/and verification].

Monte Carlo methods vary, but tend to follow a particular pattern:

Define a domain of possible inputs.

Generate inputs randomly from a probability distribution over the domain.

Perform a deterministic computation on the inputs.

Aggregate the results.

For example, consider a circle inscribed in a unit square. Given that the circle and the square have a ratio of areas that is ?/4, the value of ? can be approximated using a Monte Carlo method:[4]

Draw a square on the ground, then inscribe a circle within it.

Uniformly scatter some objects of uniform size (grains of rice or sand) over the square.

Count the number of objects inside the circle and the total number of objects.

The ratio of the two counts is an estimate of the ratio of the two areas, which is ?/4. Multiply the result by 4 to estimate ?.

In this procedure the domain of inputs is the square that circumscribes our circle. We generate random inputs by scattering grains over the square then perform a computation on each input (test whether it falls within the circle). Finally, we aggregate the results to obtain our final result, the approximation of ?.

If grains are purposefully dropped into only the center of the circle, they are not uniformly distributed, so our approximation is poor. Second, there should be a large number of inputs. The approximation is generally poor if only a few grains are randomly dropped into the whole square. On average, the approximation improves as more grains are dropped.

Much of it seems even harder to compare, but the purpose to better resolving behavior of something between experimental points (given) is the same when used to train what we could call also call quantum mechanics Quanta Bots (which behave like QM predicts).

It's maybe not much of an MC either, still seems to have more features in common with that, than an EA. In a sense because of the way it works does not need Monte Carlo method to figure anything out, line that blurs out to a probability range would be different lifetimes with something different that is made to happen along the way. Would see how often they end up going one way or another after that. One of the Baldwin Effect lines perhaps.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You can here conceptualize all particles or other entity as insect like pop-art thingies that sense whats's around them (with whatever you give them to sense location of something with) that move around using simple round motor wheels/wings/thrusters which turn bright white when on full blast.

Science!

I prefer to conceptualise all particles as purple walruses in kilts, eating cupcakes while dancing to Trout Mask Replica. It fits the data just as well.

You still don't get it.

It has to do with the variables the algorithm has to work with, which are here literally those for a model for an intelligent entity with a brain. It's only expected that it ends up looking unusually lifelike in an anthropomorphic sort of way.

What happens, is by the time you add standard thrust vector arrows and easiest way to see what it is sensing around it (by drawing pie shaped arcs at its center filled with color as in compound eye) I'm sure your quantum bot will come out at least almost as cute as my creation.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I have to chime in that this thread has given me hours of hysterical enjoyment - another aging idealogue, one hand on the random word generator, the other sweaty fist clasping his bible, desperately trying to avoid the G-word, drowning in his own pretzel-logic as he dances gleefully with his hair on fire. Christmas came early this year - I don't need another thing (well, maybe that big white 70-200 2.8 L).

If you have a problem with that then you have no idea what the potentially species altering Baldwin Effect is, or how it could here be displayed. But if you can explain it so much better then go ahead, enlighten me.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

But the "intelligence" in the described simulator is in the simulator, not in the thing being simulated.

What people here are objecting to is the implied claim that the object of the simulation has intelligence, but when the object being simulated is merely reacting, and not thinking or remembering, it doesn't. That's whether what it's reacting to is a fundamental force, or a smell that attracts or repels.

Oh, and for simulations of atoms that may have more than one electron, the state of the atom would have to include the energy levels of the electrons (i.e., which shell and subshell are they in).